The Source of the Controversy
A fundamental issue that separates Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions
is the question of the Old Testament Apocrypha. Catholics argue that the
Apocrypha was an integral part of the early church and should be included
in the list of inspired Old Testament books. Protestants believe that the
books of the Apocrypha are valuable for understanding the events and culture
of the intertestamental period and for devotional reading, but are not inspired
nor should they be included in the canon, the list of books included in
the Bible. This disagreement about which books belong in the Bible points
to other differences in Roman Catholic and Protestant beliefs about canonicity
itself and the interplay between the authority of the Bible and the authority
of tradition as expressed in the institutional church. Catholics contend
that God established the church and that the Church, the Roman Catholic
Church, both gave us the Bible and verified its authenticity. Protestants
believe that the Scriptures, the writings of the prophets and apostles,
are the foundation upon which the church is built and are authenticated
by the Holy Spirit, who has been and is active in church congregations and
councils.
The books of the Apocrypha considered to be canonical by the Roman Catholic
Church are first found in Christian era copies of the Greek Septuagint,
a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. According to Old Testament
authority F. F. Bruce, Hebrew scholars in Alexandria, Egypt, began translating
the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek around 250 B.C. because the Jews in
that region had given up the Hebrew language for Greek.{1}
The resulting translation is called the Septuagint (or LXX) because of
legend that claims that seventy Hebrew scholars finished their work in
seventy days, indicating its divine origins.
The books or writings from the Apocrypha that the Roman Catholic Church
claims are inspired are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus,
Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Letter of Jeremiah, additions to Esther, Prayer
of Azariah, Susanna (Daniel 13), and Bel and the Dragon (Daniel 14). Three
other Apocryphal books in the Septuagint, the Prayer of Manasseh, and
1 & 2 Esdras, are not considered to be inspired or canonical by the Roman
Catholic Church.
This disagreement over the canonicity of the Apocryphal books is significant
if only for the size of the material being debated. By including it with
the Old Testament one adds 152,185 words to the King James Bible. Considering
that the King James New Testament has 181,253 words, one can see how including
the books would greatly increase the influence of pre-Christian Jewish
life and thought.
This issue is important for two other reasons as well. First, there
are specific doctrines that are held by the Roman Catholic Church which
are supported by the Apocryphal books. The selling of indulgences for
forgiveness of sins and purgatory are two examples. Secondly, the issue
of canonicity itself is reflected in the debate. Does the church, through
the power of the Holy Spirit, recognize what is already canonical, or
does the church make a text canonical by its declarations?
As believers who have called upon the saving work of Jesus Christ as
our only hope for salvation, we all want to know what is from God and
what is from man. The remainder of this article will defend the traditional
Protestant position against the inclusion of the Apocrypha as inspired
canon.
The Jewish Canon
As we are considering the debate over the canonicity of the Old Testament
Apocrypha or what has been called the "Septuagint plus," we will first look
at evidence that Alexandrian Jews accepted what has been called a wider
canon.
As mentioned previously, Jews in Alexandria, Egypt, began translating
the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek (the Septuagint) hundreds of years
before Christ. Because the earliest complete manuscripts we have of this
version of the OT includes extra books called the Apocrypha, many believe
that these books should be considered part of the OT canon even though
they are not found in the Hebrew OT. In effect, some argue that we have
two OT canons, the Hebrew canon of twenty-two books, often called the
Palestinian canon, and the larger Greek or Alexandrian canon that includes
the Apocrypha.
F. F. Bruce states there is no evidence that the Jews (neither Hebrew
nor Greek speaking) ever accepted a wider canon than the twenty-two books
of the Hebrew OT. He argues that when the Christian community took over
the Greek OT they added the Apocrypha to it and "gave some measure of
scriptural status to them also."{2}
Gleason Archer makes the point that other Jewish translations of the
OT did not include the Apocryphal books. The Targums, the Aramaic translation
of the OT, did not include them; neither did the earliest versions of
the Syriac translation called the Peshitta. Only one Jewish translation,
the Greek (Septuagint), and those translations later derived from it (the
Italia, the Coptic, Ethiopic, and later Syriac) contained the Apocrypha.{3}
Even the respected Greek Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria never quotes
from the Apocrypha. One would think that if the Greek Jews had accepted
the additional books, they would have used them as part of the canon.
Josephus, who used the Septuagint and made references to 1 Esdras and
1 Maccabees writing about 90 A.D. states that the canon was closed in
the time of Artaxerxes I whose reign ended in 423 B.C.{4}
It is also important to note that Aquila's Greek version of the OT made
about 128 A.D., which was adopted by the Alexandrian Jews, did not include
the Apocrypha.
Advocates of the Apocrypha argue that it does not matter if the Jews
ever accepted the extra books since they rejected Jesus as well. They
contend that the only important opinion is that of the early church. However,
even the Christian era copies of the Greek Septuagint differ in their
selection of included books. The three oldest complete copies we have
of the Greek OT include different additional books. Codex Vaticanus (4th
century) omits 1 and 2 Maccabees, which is canonical according to the
Roman Catholic Church, and includes 1 Esdras, which they reject. Codex
Sinaiticus (4th century) leaves out Baruch. which is supposed to be canonical,
but includes 4 Maccabees, which they reject. Codex Alexandrinus (5th century)
includes three non-canonical Apocryphal books, 1 Esdras and 3 and 4 Maccabees.{5}
All of this points to the fact that although these books were included
in these early Bibles, this alone does not guarantee their status as canon.
Although some may find it unimportant that the Jews rejected the inspiration
and canonicity of the Apocrypha, Paul argues in Romans that the Jews have
been entrusted with the "very words of God."{6} And
as we will see, the early church was not unanimous regarding the appropriate
use of the Apocrypha. But first, let's consider how Jesus and the apostles
viewed the Apocrypha.
Jesus and the Apostles
Those who support the canonicity of the Apocrypha argue that both Jesus
and his followers were familiar with the Greek OT called the Septuagint.
They also argue that when the New Testament writers quote Old Testament
passages, they are quoting from the Greek OT. Since the Septuagint included
the additional books of the Apocrypha, Jesus and the apostles must have
accepted the Apocrypha as inspired scripture. In other words, the acceptance
of the Septuagint indicates acceptance of the Apocrypha as well. Finally,
they contend that the New Testament is full of references to material found
in the Apocrypha, further establishing its canonicity. A number of objections
have been raised to these arguments.
First, the claim that the Septuagint of apostolic times included the
Apocrypha is not certain. As we noted previously, the earliest manuscripts
we have of the entire Septuagint are from the 4th century. If Jesus used
the Septuagint, it may or may not have included the extra books. Also
remember that although the 4th century copies do include the Apocryphal
books, none include the same list of books. Second, F. F. Bruce argues
that instead of using the Septuagint, which was probably available at
the time, Jesus and his disciples actually used the Hebrew text during
His ministry. Bruce writes, "When Jesus was about to read the second lesson
in the Nazareth synagogue . . . it was most probably a Hebrew scroll that
he received."{7} It was later, as the early church
formed and the gospel was carried to the Greek-speaking world, that the
Septuagint became the text often used by the growing church.
Bruce agrees that all the writers of the New Testament made use of the
Septuagint. However, none of them gives us an exact list of what the canonical
books are. While it is possible that New Testament writers like Paul allude
to works in the Apocrypha, that alone does not give those works scriptural
status. The problem for those advocating a wider canon is that the New
Testament writers allude to, or even quote many works that no one claims
to be inspired. For instance, Paul may be thinking of the book of Wisdom
when he wrote the first few chapters of Romans. But what of the much clearer
reference in Jude 14 to 1 Enoch 1:9, which no one claims to be inspired?
How about the possible use of a work called the Assumption of Moses
that appears to be referenced in Jude 9? Should this work also be part
of the canon? Then there is Paul's occasional use of Greek authors to
make a point. In Acts 17 Paul quotes line five from Aratus' Phaenomena,
and in 1 Corinthians he quotes from Menander's comedy, Thais. No
one claims that these works are inspired.
Recognizing the fact that the Septuagint was probably available to both
Jesus and his disciples, it becomes even more remarkable that there are
no direct quotes from any of the Apocryphal books being championed for
canonicity. Jesus makes clear reference to all but four Old Testament
books from the Hebrew canon, but he never directly refers to the apocryphal
books.
The Church Fathers
Those who support the canonicity of the Apocrypha argue that the early church
Fathers accepted the books as Scripture. In reality, their support is anything
but unanimous. Although many of the church Fathers held the books in high
esteem, they often refused to include them in their list of inspired books.
In the Eastern Church, the home of the Septuagint, one would expect
to find unanimous support for the canonicity of the "Septuagint plus,"
the Greek OT and the Apocrypha among the early Fathers. However, such
is not the case. Although the well-known Justin Martyr rejected the Hebrew
OT, accusing it of attempting to hide references to Christ, many others
in the East accepted the Hebrew canon's shorter list of authoritative
books. Melito of Sardis, the Bishop of Sardis in 170 A.D., listed the
OT books in a letter to a friend. His list was identical to the Hebrew
canon except for Esther. Another manuscript, written about the same time
as Melito's by the Greek patriarchate in Jerusalem, listed the twenty-
four (see footnote on how the books were counted) books of the Hebrew
OT as the canon.{8}
Origen, who is considered to be the greatest Bible scholar among the
Greek Fathers, limited the accepted OT scriptures to the twenty-four books
of the Hebrew canon. Although he defends the use of such books as the
History of Susanna, he rejects their canonicity. Both Athanasius and Gregory
of Nazianzus limited the OT canon to the books of the Hebrew tradition.
Athanasius, the defender of the Trinitarian view at the Council of Nicea,
wrote in his thirty-ninth festal letter (which announced the date of Easter
in 367) of his concern about the introduction of "apocryphal" works into
the list of holy scripture. Although he agreed that there are other books
"to be read to those who are recent converts to our company and wish to
be instructed in the word of true religion," his list of OT agrees with
the Hebrew canon. Gregory of Nazianzus is known for arranging the books
of the Bible in verse form for memorization. He did not include the "Septuagint
plus" books in his list. Eventually, in the 1600's, the Eastern Church
did officially accept the Septuagint with its extra books as canon, along
with its claim that the Septuagint is the divinely inspired version of
the OT.
In the Latin West, Tertullian was typical of church leaders up until
Jerome. Tertullian accepted the entire "Septuagint plus" as canon and
was willing to open the list even wider. He wanted to include 1 Enoch
because of its mention in Jude. He also argued for the divine nature of
the Sibylline Oracles as a parallel revelation to the Bible.{9}
However, Jerome is a pivotal person for understanding the relationship
between the early church and the OT canon. Having mastered both Greek
and eventually Hebrew, Jerome realized that the only satisfactory way
to translate the OT is to abandon the Septuagint and work from the original
Hebrew. Eventually, he separated the Apocryphal books from the rest of
the Hebrew OT saying that "Whatever falls outside these (Hebrew texts)
. . . are not in the canon."{10} He added that the
books may be read for edification, but not for ecclesiastical dogmas.
Although Augustine included the "Septuagint plus" books in his list
of the canon, he didn't know Hebrew. Jerome later convinced him of the
inspired nature of the Hebrew OT, but Augustine never dropped his support
for the Apocrypha. The early church Fathers were anything but unanimous
in their support for the inspiration of the Apocrypha.
The Question of Canonicity
The relationship between the church and the Bible is a complex one. The
question of canonicity is often framed in an either/or setting. Either the
infallible Roman Catholic Church, having absolute authority, decides the
issue, or we have absolute chaos with no possible guidance whatsoever regarding
the limits of what is inspired and what isn't.
In a recent meeting of Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox
theologians called the Rose Hill conference, evangelical theologian Harold
O. J. Brown asks that we hold a dynamic view of this relationship between
the church and the Bible. He notes that Catholics have argued "that the
church¾the Catholic Church¾gave
us the Bible and that church authority authenticates it."{11}
Protestants have responded with the view that "Scripture creates the church,
which is built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles."{12}
However, he admits that there is no way to make the New Testament older
than the church. Does this leave us then bowing to church authority only?
Brown doesn't think so. He writes, "[I]t is the work of the Spirit that
makes the Scripture divinely authoritative and preserves them from error.
In addition the Holy Spirit was active in the early congregations and
councils, enabling them to recognize the right Scriptures as God's Word."
He adds that even though the completed canon is younger than the church,
it is not in captivity to the church. Instead, "it is the 'norm that norms'
the church's teaching and life."{13}
Many Catholics argue that the additional books found in the Apocrypha
(Septuagint plus) which they call the deutero-canon, were universally
held by the early church to be canonical. This is a considerable overstatement.
However, Protestants have acted as if these books never existed or played
any role whatsoever in the early church. This too is an extreme position.
Although many of the early church fathers recognized a distinction between
the Apocryphal books and inspired Scripture, they universally held them
in high regard. Protestants who are serious students of their faith cannot
ignore this material if they hope to understand the early church or the
thinking of its earliest theologians.
On the issue of canonicity, of the Old Testament or the New, Norman
Geisler lists the principles that outline the Protestant perspective.
Put in the form of a series of questions he asks, "Was the book written
by a spokesperson for God, who was confirmed by an act of God, who told
the truth in the power of God, and was accepted by the people of God?"{14}
If these can be answered in the affirmative, especially the first question,
the book was usually immediately recognized as inspired and included in
the canon. The Old Testament Apocrypha lacks many of these characteristics.
None of the books claim to be written by a prophet and Maccabees specifically
denies being prophetic.{15} Others contain extensive
factual errors.{16} Most importantly, many in the
early church including Melito of Sardis, Origen, Athanasius, Gregory of
Nazianzus, and Jerome rejected the canonicity of the Apocrypha, although
retaining high regards for its devotional and inspirational value.
A final irony in this matter is the fact that even Cardinal Cajetan,
who opposed Luther at Augsburg in 1518, published a Commentary on All
the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (1532) in which
he did not include the Apocrypha.{17}
Notes
- F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 43.
- Ibid., 45.
- Gleason L Archer., A Survey of Old Testament
Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1974), 73.
- Merrill F. Unger, Introductory Guide to the
Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970),
p 99.
- Archer, 73.
- Romans 3:2 (NIV)
- Bruce, 49.
- Ibid., 72. Ezra and Nehemiah were often combined
into one book, as were Lamentations and Jeremiah and the twelve minor
prophets.
- Ibid., 87.
- Ibid., 90.
- Christopher A. Hall, Reading Scripture With
The Church Fathers (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998),
187.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian
Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company, 1999) 85.
- Ibid., 32.
- Unger, 109-111.
- Geisler, 31.
© 2000 Probe Ministries International
About the Author
Don Closson received the B.S. in education from Southern
Illinois University, the M.S. in educational administration from Illinois
State University, and the M.A. in Biblical Studies from Dallas Theological
Seminary. He served as a public school teacher and administrator before
joining Probe Ministries as a research associate in the field of education.
He can be reached via e-mail at dclosson@probe.org.
What is Probe?
Probe Ministries is a non-profit corporation whose mission
is to reclaim the primacy of Christian thought and values in Western culture
through media, education, and literature. In seeking to accomplish this
mission, Probe provides perspective on the integration of the academic
disciplines and historic Christianity.
In addition, Probe acts as a clearing house, communicating the results
of its research to the church and society at large.
Further information about Probe's materials and ministry may be obtained
by writing to:
Probe Ministries
1900 Firman Drive, Suite 100
Richardson, TX 75081
(972) 480-0240 FAX(972) 644-9664
info@probe.org
www.probe.org
Copyright
Information
|